Rated AO — Censored, or censorship?

Videogames were, for some time, an entirely non-regulated realm in terms of content — violent or suggestive material was made apparent through more simple means, like box arts and the descriptions on their boxes. Take a look at the old-school title, Contra:

Now, obviously, this title is going to follow a tale that demands some degree of violence, and it did: players, even in the game's pixelated style, shot and killed monsters. My parents, with this in mind, did not allow me to purchase the title — this was their own, educated decision.

Fast forward a few years to 1994, and the Entertainment Software Rating Board came into existence, employing standardized rating center much like those employed in motion pictures. And for the most part, they make sense, with titles on the shelves from EC (Early Childhood), E (Everyone), T (Teen) and M (Mature).

But there is one rating that has never hit the shelves in the US. It's AO: Adults Only.

One would imagine that, by the mechanics of the ratings board, that a truly adult game (One featuring extremely graphic sexuality or violence) would be labeled with the AO rating and released with that degree of discretion.

This is not all how it works. How about a case study.

The Unfortunate Case of Manhunt 2

Rockstar Games isn't exactly known for making "nice-nice" with game content advocates: they've made the infamous Grand Theft Auto series, which has within itself made a stir with it's open-work, kill-em-all mentality. Though this is by no means their most controversial game. That title goes to the Manhunt series.

This isn't an undeserved title, really — as a player of this game, I can confidently say that this gory offering from Rockstar is truly the sickest of the sick. It's a steal-based title, where players skulk in the shadows, offing criminals and guards alike in the most grizzly ways possible. Smashing skulls? Check. Hacksaws to the groin? Check. Long, agonizing stranglings? Check. It's an entirely demented title, and when it released, many were not happy about the games content. To this day, the title is entirely banned in New Zealand, Germany and Australia, and extremely restricted in Canada.

And then Rockstar decided to make a second one.

Manhunt 2 was the apologetic re-release of the violence that made the original Manhunt so controversial, except it went even farther. Castrations? Check. Chainsaw decapitations? Oh yes. Shoving a syringe into the eye of a gimp-suit wearing dominatrix — that's actually in the game.

As you can expect, the reaction was not positive from some. From others, it was huge: the game was a top title, and people were ready for it to hit shelves. And then it got slammed with the AO rating (Along with a few bans as well.)

This wasn't a rating: it was an effective "you can't sell this." See, Gamestop, Toys R US, Best Buy — they do not sell AO games. In some regions of the world, the rating (Or it's equivalent) is illegal to sell. So then it begs the question: why even make the rating in the first place?

From my perspective, the AO rating can be taken as a sort of veiled censorship — a seal of death wrapped in the image of a standardized rating system. It's easiest to kill something in stealth — something Manhunt surely would agree on.

So what happened to Manhunt? Initially, Rockstar was resistant in making the changes, but faced with the possibility of not selling a title like this, they ultimately placed a strong, static-filled filter over the execution scenes — ultimately making it tamer than the game that preceded it.
What the main question is, is this: If we have a rating, why do we not use it? Is it not easier, and more transparent, to simply ban the titles? If you run it past me, yes. If you run it past me, it's censorship: these games, despite their content, are orchestrated pieces of art. They shouldn't be censored because they may prove graphic.

But I hacked the game anyway, and saw it all without those silly filters. Touche, ESRB.